SURAJ BHAN GARG vs YES BANK THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER — CWP/7848/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section Article 226. Disposed: --DISPOSED OF on 24th March 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 16-Mar-2026

CNR: PHHC010432392026

e-Filing Number

11-03-2026

Filing Number

CWP/14840/2026

Filing Date

12-Mar-2026

Registration No

CWP/7848/2026

Registration Date

12-Mar-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Jagmohan Bansal

Coram

Mr. Justice Jagmohan Bansal

Bench Type

Single

Category

63.15 - MISC. UOI ( 741 )

Judicial Branch

WRITS -I BRANCH

Decision Date

24-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISPOSED OF

Last updated 11-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section Article 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SURAJ BHAN GARG

    Adv. DHANANJAY SINGH

  2. 2.Yes Bank Through its Branch Manager

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.YES BANK THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER

  2. 2.Yes Bank Through its Branch Manager

  3. 3.State of Karnataka through its Chief Secretary

  4. 4.DGP Karnataka

  5. 5.Police Inspector

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Mar-2026

    Mr. Justice Jagmohan BansalView PDF

    The High Court of Punjab and Haryana directed YES Bank to de-freeze Suraj Bhan Garg's account within three days, finding that the account was frozen without any FIR registration or magistrate's order under Section 107 of BNSS. The petitioner was permitted to operate his account while maintaining a balance of Rs.50,000, which remains frozen as a disputed amount related to a suspicious transaction flagged by law enforcement. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 12-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CWP/7848/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana directed YES Bank to de-freeze Suraj Bhan Garg's account within three days, finding that the account was frozen without any FIR registration or magistrate's order under Section 107 of BNSS. The petitioner was permitted to operate his account while maintaining a balance of Rs.50,000, which remains frozen as a disputed amount related to a suspicious transaction flagged by law enforcement. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case